Fomaspeed Variant 311 RC Glossy vs Ilford MGRC Deluxe Glossy

[gone]

I was in the darkroom for 7 hrs last night, and made two comparison prints between these RC papers. This isn't a detailed comparison, just my first impressions w/ the Foma paper. I've been using the Ilford paper for a while, and this is a tough contest as the MGRC is the best RC paper I've used.

First, Foma's ...."rich halftone scale from a shining white tone to a deep black one" is only half true. I got decent blacks, but the white is anything but shining white. It's a sorta light gray color actually. This paper also needed around twice as much exposure compared to the Ilford paper, at least on these prints. Initially I tried to make a straight comparison by using the same exposure w/ the Foma paper as the Ilford. That resulted in a highly underexposed Foma print. So on these two shots, I did the test strips like always, and kinda tried to make the 2 prints look the same. The Foma paper is also flimsier than the Ilford.

I like the Foma paper, but it probably needs to be used w/ the right negatives. These two may have not been right for it.

 

[radiant]

Here is my tests with Stouffer wedge (311, MGRC and Harman direct positive):

I haven't seen any problems with whites on 311. Maybe your paper got fogged or the exposure wasn't correct? Looking at the picture it seems to be a bit overexposed / a bit lower contrast than MGRC.

On high contrast (blue) there isn't that much difference in terms of characteristic curve. But on low contrast (green) the Ilford seems to be much linear on shadows.

I've actually made really decent prints with 311 - altough my everyday paper is MGRC.

 

[MattKing]

That looks like safelight fog on the Foma paper.
I would check it with the full Kodak Safelight test (including both pre and post exposure): https://www.kodak.com/content/products-brochures/Film/KODAK-A-Guide-to-Darkroom-Illumination-K-4.pdf
And yes, it is a really boring thing to do.
It is not unusual for one type of paper to be fine under a safelight, while another is not.

 

[brbo]

My 311 comes out white whites. No safelight, complete darkness from start to finish.

 

[radiant]

My 311 comes out white whites. No safelight, complete darkness from start to finish.

Now that is commitment.

 

[gone]

I read the stats on the Foma paper that came w/ it before printing. There's a real low wattage red filter safelight WITH a sheet of Ruby red lith over that. Never fogged a paper yet. The safelight is a long way from the print area, and everything is quite dim. If it were fogging, why isn't the Ilford fogged? No, it's not fogged, not by me anyway. Besides, I always have my back to the safelight when I take the paper out, and after it's in my "easel", the safelight is automatically turned off by the timer.

I forgot, the developer was Legacypro Liquid Paper Developer. This was my first time for me w/ that developer and it worked fine.

Note: when I said the Foma whites were more gray like, that's w/ a Foma print next to the Ilford print. I actually like the paper, just need to find suitable negs for it. This happened before when I looked at the whites of Adox MCC 110 prints compared to other papers I'd been using. The Adox was what it was, a paper I sorely miss.

 

[MattKing]

If it were fogging, why isn't the Ilford fogged?

There are significant differences in the spectral sensitivity of some darkroom papers from some different manufacturers. You cannot rely on tests made with another company's papers.
Here is the excerpt from the Ilford data-sheet:

And here are the excerpts from the Foma data-sheet:

625 nm is a fair bit longer than where the Ilford sensitivity goes down to zero.

 

[gone]

There is one other possibility that I just thought of. This paper sat outside my front door pretty much all day in Az heat. The FedEx people never knock, they just put stuff down and run back to the truck. I never even knew it was there until I went to lock up that evening.

I mentioned that I followed Foma's instructions for this paper regarding safelight usage before printing (indirect low wattage safelight w/ orange or red filter, keep the light far away from the print area, etc, etc). Nothing here gets printed in total darkness if that's required, and the fact sheet made no mention of any of this, just use the safelight that I did.

 

[MattKing]

There is one other possibility that I just thought of. This paper sat outside my front door pretty much all day in Az heat. The FedEx people never knock, they just put stuff down and run back to the truck. I never even knew it was there until I went to lock up that evening.

Certainly a possibility.
After all, how fogged would you be if you were left outside your front door pretty much all day in Az heat.?
Try one print in as much complete darkness as you can manage. If it comes out better, you will know more.

 

[gone]

I would be dead out there! But OK, just for grins, I'll print it again next time I do a print run, and I'll do it in total darkness. Hate to do that though. Reminds me too much of my attempts at color processing, which was not for me. That's why they have labs: to develop and print my 2 rolls of color film that are usually shot in a year.

 

[MattKing]

If it works in darkness, and you really like the result, you can consider replacing your safelight with a true orthographic safelight. It will be somewhat dim, but at least you will be able to use it with both the Foma and the Ilford paper.

 

[gone]

As Alice once said, things get curiouser and curiouser. This is the back of the paper, where there is no emulsion. Big difference in the two papers. I wonder why? Fogging the emulsion wouldn't do this. The darkish brown one is the Foma.

 

[lantau]

If I may ask, how is the gloss of the Foma, compared to Ilford? I have a box of 8x10 Foma 311 for making contact sheets. The surface is very dull. Perhaps like what you get when two smooth surfaces against each other for some time.

I'm wondering if it is only the one box, or a feature of 311.

 

[Frank53]

I was in the darkroom for 7 hrs last night, and made two comparison prints between these RC papers. This isn't a detailed comparison, just my first impressions w/ the Foma paper. I've been using the Ilford paper for a while, and this is a tough contest as the MGRC is the best RC paper I've used.

First, Foma's ...."rich halftone scale from a shining white tone to a deep black one" is only half true. I got decent blacks, but the white is anything but shining white. It's a sorta light gray color actually. This paper also needed around twice as much exposure compared to the Ilford paper, at least on these prints. Initially I tried to make a straight comparison by using the same exposure w/ the Foma paper as the Ilford. That resulted in a highly underexposed Foma print. So on these two shots, I did the test strips like always, and kinda tried to make the 2 prints look the same. The Foma paper is also flimsier than the Ilford.

I like the Foma paper, but it probably needs to be used w/ the right negatives. These two may have not been right for it.

Have you taken into consideration, that with another paper, not only exposure time changes, but also grade?
Regards,
Frank

 

[gone]

OK, I decided to just make test strips because I can use the Fomaspeed paper just as it is. After the neg was focused, all lights were turned off and the Fomaspeed strips were cut and developed in total darkness. The safelight should be ok for the Fomaspeed because it wasn't on this time. The top strip is the Ilford paper from a previous printing session. These shots were totally desaturated to avoid any tint issues.

One test strip was cut from a paper in the middle of the pack, and the other from a paper that was on the bottom. All I can do now is buy a fresh pack of papers w/ my next Freestyle order and try this again in the dark, and then once again w/ my current safelight. Now that I've looked at these papers a while, I agree, they're probably fogged. Maybe it did get fried sitting out in 105 degree sun all day outside.